TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Quashed order remitted for fresh adjudication on exemption; late Section 161 rectification not entertained, remand on 25% deposit</h1> <h3>Shaji Baby John Versus Proper Officer/state Tax Officer, GST Department, Ettayapuram</h3> HC quashed the impugned order and remitted the matter to the original authority to determine whether the applicant is entitled to the exemption under the ... Dismissal of application for rectification filed u/s 161 beyond the statutory period of limitation - HELD THAT:- Prima facie, it appears that the petitioner may be exempted from payment of the respective Goods and Services Tax Enactments as per Serial No.20 of the N/N. 2/2017-CT (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 and corresponding notification issued by the State Government. However, whether the petitioner was indeed engaged in the sale and supply of items covered by Serial No.20 of the N/N. 2/2017-CT (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 cannot be decided by this Court. Under similar circumstances, this Court has come to rescue the person like the petitioner by quashing the impugned order and remitting the case back to the original authority to pass fresh order on terms subject to payment of 25% of the disputed tax. Petition disposed off by way of remand. The petitioner challenged the assessment order dated 31.12.2023 (assessment year 2017-2018). Notices in DRC-01 (16.02.2023), GST ASMT-10 (25.02.2022) and DRC-01A (02.05.2022) were issued but went unanswered; an application for rectification under Section 161 was dismissed as time-barred. Petitioner contends turnover comprises sales of fisheries items exempt under 'Serial No.20 of Notification No.2/2017-CT (Rate) dated 28.06.2017' and alleges knowledge of the rectification rejection only after a third-party bank notice under Section 79(1)(C)(iii)(iv). Court noted prima facie possibility of exemption but held that 'whether the petitioner was indeed engaged in the sale and supply of items covered by Serial No.20...' cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction. The impugned order was quashed and remitted for fresh adjudication on terms: payment of Rs.10,00,000/- within 30 days; petitioner to file a consolidated reply treating the impugned order as 'addendum to the show cause notice'; respondent to pass fresh order on merits preferably within two months. Failure to comply will result in it being deemed 'as if the Writ Petition was dismissed.' No costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
